Merc poll: SJ residents say no to public funds for baseball

Among other election-related items, respondents to a recent poll commissioned by the Merc were asked how they felt about the city spending public money to bring MLB to San Jose. The results were negative in a landslide: 53.6% were against the idea, while 32.1% were for it.

The San Jose effort has been marred by three specific issues:

• The Gonzales stench. The decidedly unpopular mayor (26.7% approval) publicly campaigned on behalf of the city over a year ago at spring training (the misspelling incident). He tried to have a ballot measure for a ballpark scheduled for November's general election (bad move, quickly dismissed). He now believes that his successor should figure out a way to avoid a public vote. That won't happen even if City Hall were scandal-free.
• Dissent in the ranks. Baseball San Jose is made up of numerous civic and business leaders. Sometime after the Selig visit in September, the group became somewhat fractured as there was no consensus built about how to further pursue the A's. Some wanted to keep a low profile in keeping with Bud Selig's typical M.O. Some wanted to directly challenge the Giants and MLB. Others wanted to retreat and regroup - waiting for an opportunity to arise when efforts in Alameda County failed. BBSJ's website went dark and so went the best outreach arm the effort had. Few BBSJ members showed up at the publich outreach meetings. Any chance they had to shape the dialogue with the public was lost. On the political side, there are two mayoral candidates (Michael Mulcahy and Dave Cortese) who happen to be BBSJ leaders that are campaigning against each other. They may be splitting the pro-baseball vote, with Cindy Chavez getting a small portion as well.
• No sizzle, no steak either. The city has been hamstrung by its inability to engage directly in a dialogue with the A's. Sure, San Jose leaders see and talk to Wolff frequently (because he is one of them after all), but the territorial rights issue has effectively put up a soundproof glass wall between them and the A's. As long as there is no dialogue, no substantive ballpark plan - with ancillary development - can be debated. It's unknown what the public's share would be beyond the land acquisition. It may very well be that if the poll respondents were answering a question more along the lines of, "Would you support the acquisition of land for a baseball team as long as there were no other public expenditures to get a ballpark built?" it might be a completely different result. The city has its hands tied because it can't explain the economic side of a ballpark concept.

Does this mean that the San Jose ballpark plan is dead? No, because things can change rapidly. San Jose is stuck being "Plan C" (if Oakland were "Plan A" and Fremont "Plan B") and there's very little it can do about it. Should the Fremont plan move forward and result in a ballpark, the San Jose effort (at least the $700K spent on the EIR) would be rendered moot. At least they'll be able to recoup redevelopment's land grab by selling off the property for housing. Should Fremont collapse and if Oakland and the A's aren't able to put a workable proposal together, San Jose could move to the forefront. Some would argue that was Wolff's plan all along. Considering the bullet points above, I have to respectfully disagree.

Fremont website recognized + Wolff speaks

Chris De Benedetti of the Fremont Argus wrote about the A's Baseball to Fremont website and the effort behind it. There's a comment from Cindy Bonior, head of the Fremont Chamber of Commerce:

"It's been a slow process because the city warned us the A's are obligated to work with (Oakland)," Bonior said. "We're looking to be more vocal. We're just waiting for the right time."

For those who were wondering why we took so long to get the Fremont site going, that's a big reason.

---

Wolff also showed up in the booth at today's A's-Yankees game to talk stadium and development. He also said there's no news, but he gave insight into how long it would take to develop the ballpark.

Kuiper: What has made the Fremont site so attractive to you?
Wolff: One of the things is the size of the land. As you know, land is scarce. We had a friendly welcome in Fremont, we had one in Oakland too... The economics of the ballpark village will pay for the ballpark... We're going to need a lot of help from the city and the county.

Fosse: How long will it take to get started?
Wolff: It'll take a year to design it and get a building permit. I'd say that it'd take two to two-and-a-half years to start building. It might take a year-and-a-half to get it built... There's an environmental impact report on the site already. If we can get a revised report (instead of a new one), we can take six months off the time required.

Fosse: Talk about the luxury suites.
Wolff: We'll have 40 4-person suites at the 15th row. We'll also have regular suites. The suites will be packed with technology.

Fosse: What will these 4-person suites look like?
Wolff: Behind it will be a private area for bathrooms and food. It looks pretty neat from the drawings we have... The 18 to 20-person suites require a (huge base). If you have a law firm or a family, the 4-person suite makes a lot more sense... Milwaukee is the worst at selling suites, and we found out that the type most in demand there are those smaller suites.

Fosse: Will it be "underground" or above ground?
Wolff: It'll be above ground. (Note: This is probably due to the location's low elevation - 27 feet above sea level - which makes it susceptible to tidal flows.)

What's unclear to me is why it would take so long after the the team gets the permit. There's no demolition or remediation that would need to be done on the site. It might take a few months to get it ready, but since it wouldn't be a sunken field, there wouldn't be a significant amount of excavation. I'll have to defer to the people in the know on this one.

If that timeline is right, the ballpark could open in 2011 or 2012 at the earliest. That would coincide with the A's desire for a Coliseum lease extension to 2013.

---

The San Diego Union-Tribune has an eye-opening report on how the sports industry cooks attendance figures. Sometimes I wonder if the multiple choice "You Guess The Attendance" bit done near the end of games is a matter of guesswork for the A's front office. The article lends credence to the idea, though I've been able to guess the Coliseum's attendance within 1,000 most of the time based on who shows up by the 4th inning.

China Basin noise study

Two nights ago I hung out around the perimeter of AT&T Park. While I was disappointed in the numerous empty seats, the noise promised to be especially heavy for Barry Bonds as he attempted to tie the Babe. When Juan Pierre robbed Bonds on his shot to deep center, the circumstances were perfect. More on that in a bit.

Many of AT&T Park's signature elements make it a poor design for placement into a residential neighborhood. Chief among them is the open outfield design. Still, when San Jose looked around for a ballpark study, they went with AT&T Park design firm HOK. The sketches in the EIR had the ballpark oriented east-northeast (similar to the Coliseum's orientation), with large open spaces beyond the outfield walls. The resemblance is rather uncanny:


The grandstand shape (beneath the foul lines) is virtually the same. There's more space in right field for seating since there's no pesky body of water in the way, but otherwise it's a pretty good copy. That's good for skyline views, bad for containing noise. The noise contour sketch shows noise spilling further out past the right field fence as opposed to the left field fence. This may be due to the grandstand's shape. In the left field corner, the grandstand and the roof above the upper deck make a near right angle turn towards the foul pole. In right field, no such grandstand turn exists, allowing the noise to escape unabated. The SJ design has a two levels of seating beyond the right field fence, but it's not nearly as tall as the grandstand and doesn't have a roof. More noise would escape over the top of those seats during games.

To test the assumptions made in drawing up the contour, I monitored noise levels from three points outside AT&T Park. The top picture depicts those three points:

• 1 - The promenade or knothole area along McCovey Cove. I was at the railing, approximately 200 feet from the center of the stadium.
• 2 - The other side of McCovey Cove, near Willie Mac's statue. This location was approximately 800 feet from the center of the stadium.
• 3 - The South Beach Harbor playground, near the funky sculpture that looks like a big red compass. This location is also approximately 800 feet from the center of the stadium.

The distances are important, because sound loss is based on distance. With every doubling of distance from a sound source, there is a loss of 6 dB. In reality the loss may be more like 3-4 dB because sound can bounce off the ground and other surfaces without being absorbed. Accoding to most documentation I've read, a drop of 3-4 dB is barely detectable. Keep increasing the distance and it adds up. A loss of 10 dB means that a sound is half as loud. Drop 20 dB and it's only one-fourth as loud. (This also works in the opposite direction, so a 20 dB gain equates to four times the loudness.)

Baselines were set around the perimeter of the ballpark. At the intersection of King and Third Streets (Willie Mays Plaza), ambient noise was usually 65 dB, though traffic or MUNI Metro trains could cause the meter to spike 10 dB or more. At point #1, the typical ambient noise (uninterrupted by the PA, music, or loud cheering) was 72 dB - the volume of a running vacuum cleaner. Below is a table showing readings taken at various times during the game. Margin of error is plus/minus 3 dB.

Notice how the readings from point #3 are uniformly, consistently lower than the readings from point #2 even though they're the same distance away from the source. The grandstand (and the attached ramp) appears to have really shown its absorption capacity, and that's only partial containment. Additional noise mitigation could be achieved by further enclosing the structure. I'm not talking about building Mt. Davis. It would be more akin to the outfield seats built in San Diego, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. Sacrifices would have to be made regarding the skyline views. Is such a compromise worth it? Maybe not. Then again, if the final design resembles the 360 architecture concept, those outfield structures (hotel, party suites, condos) will reduce noise leakage just by being there. They'll also restrict the view - just by being there.

Newhouse: Oakland needs to step up

The Trib's Dave Newhouse presents the City of Oakland with a challenge in today's column: Show us the site. And by "us" he doesn't just mean the A's or the media - he means all of A's fandom. Unlike his colleague Art Spander, Newhouse finds Wolff relatively trustworthy:

Lew Wolff's at the plate, and he wants your best pitch, Oakland. Or any pitch. Perhaps a mystery pitch, because he's plenty mystified. Anyway, it's up to you, Oakland. Wolff hasn't changed his stance.

Newhouse then starts to turn the screws:

Oakland talks, but like Loaiza so far, it doesn't deliver consistently or accurately. And Wolff, unlike his predecessor in the owners' box, is willing to foot the entire bill for a new park, which is a $450 million check minus the tip. He just wants some help with, say, environmental issues. And a good price on the land would help, too.
...
But if it can be done in Fremont, why can't it be done in Oakland? It can if Oakland would stop hurling junk and come in with a high heater that would not only brush back Fremont but also drive it out of the box.

Funny how Loaiza keeps coming up (my fault there). Credit goes to Newhouse for asking the question. There's an air of resignation in the East Bay, yet there are Oakland proponents that insist that there's a solution out there that for whatever reason isn't being publicized (Wolff's supposed reluctance to deal with Oakland is often cited). Rumors are floating around about two or three sites being considered at City Hall. And Ron Dellums may know of others that are working on their own plan. It's time to publicize. You can't get the public to rally behind something they know nothing about. If Wolff is challenging the city, then the city should challenge him right back.

Fremont website/survey up + The missing argument

The A's Baseball to Fremont website is up, folks! There isn't much there yet, but there are links to a survey and a bulletin board. As more information becomes available about transportation options and the plan itself, the site will be the place to go for information. Also, please take a look at the site's mission statement. There is no blanket endorsement of the A's moving to Fremont yet, and there won't be until greater detail is released. Note on the survey: 59 responses came from a single Comcast IP address (yes, I get that information). I haven't blocked anyone out because I'd like to see all survey feedback, but any abuse of the survey will be handled quickly and vigorously. So far the tally among mostly Fremont-based respondents is 60% positive, 40% negative.

---

An article in today's CoCo Times compiles feedback from fans, pols, and economists on the A's possible move to Fremont. Ignacio De La Fuente gives his usual unproductive statement, while Larry Reid all but starts up the moving vans - which is sad, considering Reid was the guy who said he'd stake his political career on the August plan.

Andrew Zimbalist opines that the A's departure from Oakland wouldn't have a significant impact on Oakland's economy. This is probably true, since the only money the city got from the A's was the small, yearly rent check. If the impact of the A's departure were compared to the prospect of an A's stadium in downtown Oakland, it could be significant. However, that's not a black-and-white issue either, since any positive impact in Oakland would have to be weighed against public costs (funding if necessary) and opportunity costs (what could be built in its place). I have to give credit to Wolff for not trotting out the "economic development" argument much during his quest. The only time he really used it was during his Coliseum North presentation. Statements about the Fremont deal have had little to do with benefits; they've been more about paying for the ballpark.

Oakland mayoral candidates talk up the A's

Dave Newhouse's new column in the Oakland Tribune profiles the three mayoral candidates with respect to their stance on the A's. Newhouse stays away from giving an endorsement here, and I don't blame him. While all three express their interest in keeping the A's, none of them given any details as to how it would be done:

De La Fuente believes a site can be found in Oakland. He has two or three in mind that he won't disclose. But he's confident the A's will sign a lease extension, which gives Oakland more time.

After talking to Wolff, Dellums said, "I found him a very honest, refreshing, candid person. What he said to me was, 'Don't break your pick on this one. You've got other priorities.' I thought I heard him very clearly."

Very clearly: Ground won't be broken on a new ballpark in Oakland.

However, Dellums added there is a group "working very diligently" on a new location in Oakland now that the downtown site and the 66th Avenue site across from the Coliseum Complex appear buried in the dead stadium file.

The only place I can see it being done in Oakland is the Broadway Auto Row site, but maybe I don't see something that makes more sense because I'm not an Oakland resident, and therefore not as familiar with the city as some. Of course, if Broadway Auto Row is a legitimate site, Nancy Nadel will have to be won over.

I mentioned on an AN diary that it couldn't hurt Ignacio De La Fuente to appeal more openly to A's fans in Oakland. Though the A's have trumpeted the notion that Oakland is not out of the running, the timing of the A's plans has allowed certain circumstances - development sites disappearing - to grease the skids out of town.

Complaints, comments pile up for SJ EIR

Extending the comment period for San Jose's Ballpark Draft EIR to last Thursday fairly allowed for a much greater amount of time for neighborhood residents and interests to properly review the document. Again, the traffic and parking estimates were roundly assailed as unrealistic or incomplete given the nature of event traffic. If you're interested in understanding the tenor of these comments, I refer you to the recap of the first outreach meeting.

Now it's come out the the Sharks have expressed concerns about the ballpark plan. From the Saturday Merc's Barry Witt article:

A consultant for the Sharks wrote that the report "does not demonstrate that the baseball stadium can be developed without causing significant negative traffic or parking impacts on HP Pavilion.'' Among other complaints, the Sharks questioned a conclusion that wider sidewalks near the ballpark would help keep large numbers of people walking toward games from tying up vehicle traffic.

This may be the Sharks' way of saying "This town ain't big enough for the both of us." It could also be a way of the Sharks' trying to get concessions out of the ballpark plan. Look at the graphic below (taken from the EIR, click for a more expansive version) and you'll see why.

The dotted gold line represents a boundary 1/3mile away from the ballpark site. If you've frequented HP Pavilion, you'll see that the parking that exists there is the exact same parking that would be claimed for the ballpark. As the SJWC lot is developed, parking there would be at least temporarily impacted, making it difficult in the near term to fulfill the city's obligation to provide at least 6,650 spaces within 1/2 mile of the arena. The numbers on the map also tend to be misleading because not all parking lots and garages are used the same. Adobe, for instance, doesn't allow event parking in their existing garages because of security concerns. If Adobe goes ahead and builds another set of office towers on the SJWC east lot, how can Pavilion management and the city convince Adobe that it's safe to allow event parking?

Should the city proceed with plans to redevelop the area between the arena and the proposed ballpark, even more parking would be reduced. The parking lots immediately to the east of Diridon Station are generally full during the weekdays because of commuters taking Caltrain and downtown workers, who use the lots as cheap all-day parking (they get a free shuttle that takes them downtown).

Complicating matters even further are the possibility that Diridon will become a major transit hub in the future. The station already services Caltrain, ACE, Amtrak, and VTA light rail. A BART station is planned for the area, and should high speed rail become a reality, Diridon will serve as either a terminal or hub station. Add all of that demand up and it would seem absolutely essential for additional parking to be built - not just for a specific interest such as HP Pavilion, but to properly accommodate all of the different services that are supposed to be built there in the next 10-20 years. That's not even including the ballpark's several thousand spaces or the requirements of high-density residential that could be built in the area.

San Jose desperately needs to have open, frank discussions with residents about its plans for Greater Downtown. The infrastructure that's currently in place is not going to cut it, and if city leaders want to build more infill housing, greater commercial opportunities, or entertainment options like a ballpark, it can't be assumed that existing resources will even come close to satisfying the needs of each project.

One thing that might be a saving grace for San Jose could the influx of mass transit options. The expected impact of greater development would eventually dissuade many from driving downtown. While redevelopment and planning officials referred to this, they didn't give many details. It would make sense for city planners to allot for 3,000-5,000 additional spaces (that's 6,000-10,000 total) on both sides of Hwy 87 to properly accommodate increased demand for commuters, downtown workers, entertainment seekers, and residents. This can't happen until a Greater Downtown development document is discussed and written.

I haven't gotten into the traffic problems. I'll let Marc Morris's traffic comments handle that. And the residents of the Shasta/Hanchett and Delmas Park neighborhoods are rightfully concerned, though I still believe that there are mitigation measures for them that can significantly reduce impacts to them.

Another try for the Olympics

Yesterday San Francisco made the list of five finalists for the US Olympic Committee's bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. The others are Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Notably absent is New York City, winner of the 2012 bid that eventually lost to London. USOC officials are scheduled to visit San Francisco for two hours on the afternoon of May 18, after first visiting LA in the morning. BASOC has a press release touting great business support throughout the region.

The debates that surrounded the last organizing effort at times highlighted how fractured and territorial the Bay Area is. There was criticism that the too many venues were centered in Stanford, not in San Francisco. The idea of bringing BART all the way around the Bay was also heavily debated, just as it still is today with the BART-to-San Jose effort. Plus there's always a question about whether or not hosting the Olympics is just a gigantic pork barrel project.

What should be interesting is how the SF bid will look once it's available to the public. Many things have changed since November 2002, when NYC narrowly beat SF in what shouldn't have been considered a shocker (post-9/11 patriotism), but was a shocker nonetheless. Among the changes:

• Stanford Stadium, which was going to be rebuilt as the centerpiece Olympic Stadium, is being converted to a much smaller, 50,000-seat, football-specific venue. It could be a great soccer stadium for the Games, but it won't handle much else.
• Where would the new Olympic Stadium be built? Would it be the 49ers' new stadium? The Candlestick Point/Lennar development could be shaped to fit a Stadium/Olympic Village concept.
• Baseball and softball have been, for the time being, taken off the Olympic competition list. That would render AT&T Park and a future A's ballpark useless, unless both were used for other field sports such as soccer or field hockey, or unless the IOC were petitioned to bring the sports back into the fold.
• An extensive plan was in place to develop Moffett Field into the Olympic Village. Since then Moffett has been split into multiple uses: consolidated military housing run by the Army, Air National Guard post, expanded NASA center, Google-plex. Would the Olympic Village even be feasible at Moffett at this point? And could someone figure out what to do with Hangar One?
• The 2012 bid had beach volleyball at Edwards Stadium at Cal. Since we're conveniently located on the Pacific, how about having beach volleyball on, I don't know, an actual beach like Santa Cruz Main Beach or Ocean Beach in SF?
• The tennis venue would not be at an existing facility, such as Taube Family Stadium at Stanford. A new complex would be built at Mission College (not sure how this would go over with my parents, who live in Sunnyvale less than a mile from the site).

Not to belabor the points, but the keys to this bid have to be the Olympic Stadium and Olympic Village. It would be best to place them in areas that are easily accessible by mass transit (BART or the very least MUNI or VTA light rail), yet are also easy to secure. Either Candlestick Point (if someone can figure out how to keep the place warm at night during the summer) or the Coliseum complex could be good candidates. Either way it would be expensive. A track stadium does not have preferable design characteristics for a NFL stadium, so it would have to be designed to temporarily accommodate the Olympics and permanently handle football. However, it would appear that such construction would be the only truly significant project to undertake, which, relative to what's been done at previous Olympics in Atlanta and Salt Lake, would be peanuts. Many of the area's venues have been built, recently renovated, or are undergoing renovation. This includes Stanford Stadium and Maples Pavilion on the Farm, and Memorial Stadium and Haas Pavilion in Berkeley.

That leaves the transportation problem. Several issues abound there - even if Santa Clara County Measure A passed in June, there'd be a big scramble to get BART up and running by the time the Olympics began. Caltrain would absolutely have to be electrified to make it efficient enough to provide the number of Peninsula trips that would be required. There'd be a few venues spread out in places like Napa and Sacramento, but those are for more genteel pursuits like equestrian events or niche water sports like canoeing and kayaking. How would the region deal with the traffic? Would BART run 24/7? Caltrain?

The Olympics' possible effects on the A's? Probably nil.

A traffic snapshot

Before I left work today, I went to 511 and took a quick snapshot of the East Bay traffic scene. The typical choke points were heavy as usual, except for greater traffic near the Coliseum due to tonight's game (click the pic for a larger version).

SFGate A's blogger Vlae Kershner picked up on the snake-mongoose vibe between me and drummer510 through our traffic-related posts from a couple of days ago. That makes this snapshot a good illustration of where the problem doesn't lie. 880 South from San Leandro on down is pretty clear, with an expected slowdown at the 92 interchange and another one at Mowry Ave in Newark. 680 south has a couple of short bad spots near Danville and Walnut Creek, while everything from the 580 interchange south is smooth sailing. 238 is acting like 238 does, so a detour from 580 along Fairmount/Hesperian would be in order.

From the South Bay, 880 is remarkably clear coming towards the ballpark (the pink "X"), while 680 has its usual backup as it approaches Mission Blvd/262, a few miles before the Sunol Grade. 237 eastbound is in better shape than usual. And from the Peninsula, both the San Mateo and Dumbarton bridges are fairly congestion free, at least until they reach 880.

Periodically, I'll take other snapshots of this reverse commute and of the journey into Downtown San Jose.

A's SuperStation: A Missed Opportunity

With all of the upheaval happening in cable and broadcast television, it can be difficult to keep track of the casualties. Take for instance the once-fledgling networks, UPN and WB. Both thought they could be the next FOX by following the FOX blueprint of making shows for specific target audiences. In UPN's case the audience was blacks, followed by sci-fi. For WB, the target was the under-30 crowd. The failure of both experiments was finally made clear as parent companies Warner and Viacom announced a joint venture that would bring the best of the two networks together. The new network will be called CW, a nod to its Warner and CBS/Viacom roots. Its target audience will once again be young people, evidenced by its holding onto UPN's WWE franchise and several WB dramas.

Most of the stations that will make the switch to CW are currently WB affiliates. This is not the case in the Bay Area, where current UPN station KBHK-44 will be the local CW affliate. Moreover, FOX's recently announced and also youth-oriented My Network TV will appear on stations around the country formerly occupied by UPN/WB. The Bay Area is an exception in this case too, as KRON-4, once the proud local NBC affiliate, will carry My Network TV's limited (and based on KRON's existing programming, anti-KRON) lineup.

So what's to become of KBWB, the current WB-20 (formerly KOFY)? Parent company Granite Broadcasting had its earnings call today, and it announced that KBWB and WDWB-Detroit will be sold to a consortium of investment groups (including at least one hedge fund) for $150 million. KBWB and WDWB were supposed to be sold last year to a group that included several Granite shareholders, but the CW announcement effectively killed the sale so no network would be affiliated. In 1998, former station owner James Gabbert (does anyone remember the subliminal message scandal from several years back?) sold KOFY for $170 million to Granite, which immediately changed the call letters to KBWB. According to WDWB's Wiki entry, Granite is in danger of default (though it's not clear if the default is for either station or both), so it makes sense that the deal was for cash.

This looked like a unique opportunity for certain Bay Area investors if they felt emboldened by their $54 million equity gain (hint hint). There were several advantages for the A's if they acquired or partnered in acquiring KBWB:

• They'd be able to finally quell criticism about poor signal emanating from KICU-36. KBWB's transmitter is on the always centrally located Mt Sutro, not in Fremont (KICU's current locale) or near Loma Prieta (KICU's former locale).
  
• In future arrangements, the team would have full control over how many games could be on KBWB, as opposed to either FSN Bay Area or Comcast Sportsnet. The A's would finally have their own broadcasting megaphone, which should automatically give them some leverage over the regional sports networks (RSN's) and cable operators. They could also exercise a "convenient" revenue agreement between the team and station, the kind KTVU-2 and the Giants supposedly enjoy.
• The entry price could be extraordinarily low, especially compared to the $700 million Young Broadcasting paid to buy KRON.
  
• The A's would avoid the subscriber-carry problems that come with starting up a RSN.
• The A's would immediately have a larger audience for advertisers than with a cable network relegated to digital-only, as CSN and FSN+ currently are.
• An agreement could be put together starting in, say, 2011, in which Bay Area broadcasts would be handled by KBWB while Sacramento and the Central Valley would have broadcasts on CSN.
  
• Control over the station would allow them to do more brand-building exercises, such as game replays or capsules (FSN did these a while back), or extended or more frequent pre-game shows. AN TV anyone?
• In 2004, Granite invested in a DTV setup to replace the station's old analog equipment. That means the station is able to do HDTV out of the box, and they'd have the potential for two additional digital channels (AN TV anyone?). More HD broadcasts of A's games can't be a bad thing.
  
• Should the A's really go after a MLS franchise, they'd immediately have a local broadcasting platform that MLS would kill for.
• By including the station in the A's ownership group's holdings, franchise value could go up significantly, perhaps as much as it would once a new ballpark is up and running.
• Success gained in the local television market should lead to the radio market opening up nicely for the A's.
  

Obviously, there are caveats to such an acquisition. Programming an independent station outside of the sports programming tends to be a crapshoot these days, with the virtually unlimited number of syndicated shows - especially crappy shows that really don't deserve to be in syndication. There are existing broadcasting agreements that would have to expire before the A's could get really aggressive with their own network. They'll have to hire industry veterans that know how to run stations - they could keep KBWB's staff intact. The A's have a long road towards proving themselves a worthwhile ratings performer on TV. And a "free" TV station wouldn't net the handsome subscriber fees a cable-based RSN would. The price would have been $75 million for the KBWB. It's easy for me to judge when it's not my money, but $75 million doesn't sound like a large amount when one considers the potential above.

Think about it. Wouldn't this have been a great way to enter the media market and solidify the A's presence? Would it not be a huge paradigm shift, moving from being a team with little leverage over its broadcasting future to one with potentially enormous leverage? If the A's were surveying the market, they should have been aware of the possibilities. Did they show any interest? I intend to find out.

Fremont's traffic situation

When news about the Pacific Commons location came out weeks ago, one of the chief complaints was related to traffic. The idea was that a Fremont-based ballpark would only exacerbate existing commute problems. However, I am here to tell you today that most of that claim is wrong.

Before I go further into "why" it's important to understand how the commute through South Fremont compares to others in the Bay Area. Throughout the dot-com boom era, the routes from Alameda and Contra Costa Counties into Silicon Valley were nearly unbearable. With the bust came relief for many commuters, enough that no part of the East Bay-South Bay commute is on MTC's Top Ten list. That's not to say the area isn't congested - it definitely is - but the picture of gridlock many have painted simply isn't there. It should continue to get better as additional improvements are made in the area. Among these changes:

• Widening 880 between Mission Blvd (262) and 237. A revamped 880/237 interchange has helped to get commute traffic better separated from Milpitas local traffic, but it's the widening of 880 that will have truly significant effects.

  The diagram above shows the existing bottleneck on the left. Three lanes to handle converging traffic is a recipe for delay. Once widening is completed, 680-based/bound and HOV traffic will be separated from the existing north/south flow. Of course, that relief won't be fully realized until the...

• Completion of the 880/Mission Blvd interchange. Scheduled for opening in 2008, this new interchange will solve two big traffic problems by providing a direct route for 680-based/bound traffic and by offering a separate exit ramp for local traffic, which according to ACTA, accounts for 45% of the area's congestion. Clearly, the original designers of the interchange had no idea that so much development would spring up around South Fremont.

  Current

  

  Future

  

  There will still be an issue in routing HOV traffic from 880 to 680, but solutions for that issue are in planning stages as well.

The 880/Mission construction project also causes a southbound bottleneck in the afternoon. Once completed, this should be eliminated since traffic is not particularly heavy at that time and in that direction. Along the 880 corridor, the 880/92 interchange would be the one remaining bottleneck. On 680, traffic should be fairly smooth, except perhaps for the area near 580 and Stoneridge.

The end result would be that if you're driving to Fremont from elsewhere in the East Bay for an A's game, you shouldn't be adversely impacted. If you're coming from the South Bay, you'll have to contend with an existing commute backup, but one that will be made much more bearable with the improvements that should be completed well before a first pitch is thrown in a Pacific Commons ballpark. If you're coming from the Peninsula, you'll still have to contend with a bridge.

Moving forward: NYC, Minny, and Sac?

While the threat of franchise relocation may be cooling, some cities looking to keep their teams haven't shown an aversion to throwing tons of public money a team's way.

Take the Yanks and Mets deals. Both will rely on the issuance of public, tax-free bonds to finance both ballparks. No taxes are being raised to pay for either project, but both teams will pay off the debt using PILOTs, or "Payments-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes." In this case, the taxes would be property taxes that would be levied on the land improvements. The use of government-issued bonds may be illegal, so the IRS is going to take a look at it.

The Twins are using the typical playbook in bypassing a referendum for their sales tax hike. Yesterday the Minnesota House passed the Twins' stadium bill. The state Senate is expected to be more baseball-friendly than the House. All signs point to the Twins staying put.

Closer to home, Sacramento pols are trying to put together a public financing plan for a new Kings arena. To accomplish this, they're attempting to circumvent the 2/3 voter approval required for a specific-use sales tax hike. If this sounds familiar, Santa Clara County is doing the same thing with their Measure A "BART tax." If you're wondering, there's no mention of the A's anywhere in that article, which should be a clear indicator of where Sac's focus is - not on the A's.

---

Tonight is the last San Jose ballpark EIR outreach meeting (City Hall, 14th floor, Room 1446, 6 p.m.). Thank you, SJRA, for scheduling it earlier - preventing a conflict with Sharks-Preds Game 4. I attended Tuesday night's game, and the Tank really did hit 113 dB after the first Marleau goal. Marc Morris's traffic-related comments document is available if you're interested. I didn't come away from the previous meetings overly convinced that the expanded traffic study (area and time) would take place. Hopefully the continually applied pressure will make it happen.

Election time

The June election is less than 6 weeks away, and some major things will be decided that could have an impact (direct or indirect) on the A's future in the Bay Area. Among the issues:

• Oakland's mayoral race could extinguish or revive any hope of retaining the A's within city limits. Frontrunner Ron Dellums appears to be convinced that the A's already have one foot out the door, while Ignacio De La Fuente has said he's willing to fight to keep the team.
• San Jose's mayoral race is wide open, and that means it's getting ugly. Yesterday, a Merc report linked Vice Mayor/mayoral candidate Cindy Chavez to the 11th hour, backroom deal for the Grand Prix race. Opponents Chuck Reed, Dave Cortese, and Michael Mulcahy seized upon the story, with Mulcahy calling for the Santa Clara County DA to investigate the matter further.
• Santa Clara County Measure A proposes a 1/2-cent sales tax hike that would fund hospitals, emergency services, and transportation - chiefly BART. At 8.75%, the County would tie Alameda County for the highest sales tax in the Bay Area. This tax is expected to be the deciding factor in the push for BART to San Jose, as its revenue stream is designed to make up for a federal funding component that hasn't materialized. Should BART not come to San Jose, the Warm Springs extension could be delayed indefinitely, even though they are technically "de-coupled."

I haven't been able to attend any Oakland forums/debates so far, but I'm going to try to make May 15th's forum sponsored by Oakland Community Organizations (location TBD). For Oakland residents I have a request: If you have the opportunity to pose A's or ballpark-related questions at any of the house parties or other events, please send me any feedback you get. I'll be happy to devote a new post (and attribute you) on the subject matter. As a San Jose resident, I'll be attending Saturday's Public Policy Forum (at City Hall Council Chambers, no mayoral candidates expected), the Monday and May 13 debates (also at City Hall Council Chambers). Living in downtown SJ makes it quite easy to attend such SJ-related events, Oakland's another story.

Wake me when a good offer comes

Over at The Hardball Times, Maury Brown provided an assessment of the three teams that are most often targeted for a possible move (Twins, A's, Marlins), along with potential target cities (San Antonio, Charlotte, Portland, Las Vegas, Norfolk). In his judgment, we shouldn't expect the A's to find greener pastures outside the Bay Area. I've felt the same way for some time, and I'll continue to concur until details about a knock-Lew's-socks-off deal from outside California are revealed.

For those that think a big, free stadium is just around the corner anywhere in North America - think again. Those days are over. You can point to the DC deal and how the public has been swindled, but that took an extreme amount of coordinated (some would say collusive) effort by MLB and the owners, and the payoff had to be huge (which it will be). That payoff is not happening anywhere else.

News: Keep the A's in Oakland blog, Twins move forward, Fremont

drummer510 has started up a blog called "Keep the A's in Oakland." It's an outreach-type blog that encourages like-minded folks to call and write Oakland pols and educate the public on what's possible in Oakland. I've given the author a few pieces of info to get him going, including my mock-up of the Broadway Auto Row site.

---

The Twins appear to be in the home stretch of their political process to get a new open air ballpark approved. About three-fourths of the funding would come from a 0.15% sales tax hike in Hennepin County (Minneapolis, not St. Paul).

---

A new article in the East Bay Business Times covers Fremont's vision for transformation, including the ballpark village concept and a new "downtown" area.

$54 million? Not bad for one year

Forbes finally released their annual team valuation list today. The usual suspects are at the top of the food chain, with the Yankees being the first team to surpass the $1 billion mark. The Washington Nationals had the biggest gain, jumping all the way to #6 with its $440 million value. That figure is in line with the expected sales price of still-ownerless franchise. Other low-revenue teams got a big boost as well, including the A's, who jumped from $180 million to $234 million in the calendar year the Wolff/Fisher group has owned the team. This rapid appreciation is due to the continuance of lucrative national TV deals and revenue sharing.

It gets more interesting when looking at how these numbers break down. Forbes usually gets the figures pretty close since franchise sale prices tend to come very close to Forbes' appraisals, so it should be pretty easy to accept these values even with the limited information MLB and the teams make available. Take a look at how the A's and Giants compare:

• Franchise value: A's - $234 million (+26% change), Giants - $410 million (+8% change)
• Debt-to-value ratio (less than 40% preferred): A's - 38%, Giants - 37%
  
• Wins-to-player cost ratio (% relative to per average wins-per-dollar of salary): A's - 116, Giants - 76
• Market value: A's - $73 million, Giants - $155 million
  
• Brand management: A's - $21 million, Giants - $50 million
• Season ticket rolls: A's - 8,000, Giants - 28,000

What do these numbers mean to you, the baseball consuming public? Not much if you're looking for huge future payroll increases. These are not liquid or cash figures. And don't be fooled by the Giants' debt-to-value ratio. Other teams with higher debt have ancillary assets they can sell off to reduce the load, the Giants don't unless Magowan and Co. are willing to dig deep into their own portfolios.

On the other hand, the market value and brand management numbers are telling. In both cases, the Giants more than double the A's. The Giants have 350% more season ticket holders, though that could change drastically for the worse next season. This raises more than a few questions, such as:

• How much are the A's and Giants tapping into their relative markets, and the Bay Area as a whole?
• Are the A's low values due more to the stadium, ineffective marketing, or other factors?
• How much of a difference will a new ballpark for the A's really make in the grand scheme of things?

Should the A's get a ballpark built soon and ink better media deals, they could see a surge similar to what the *ahem* Anaheim Angels experienced.

San Jose news

This installment comes from San Jose City Hall's Council Chambers, where the third ballpark EIR outreach meeting is being held. There are less than twenty people in the gallery this time, due in part to Soccer Silicon Valley calling off the dogs for now. As new items come up during the session, I'll post them here.

Update (22:15): The Q&A was focused on perceived inadequacies in the Draft EIR. They ranged from expanding the traffic study to cover a larger area and the 6-7 p.m. timeframe, to questions about mitigation costs (not currently covered).

That brings up a source of consternation. While there have been recent updates to the Diridon/Arena and Midtown plans to cover new projects, there's a lack of clarity on how the ballpark will affect more than just the study area. The EIR aims to cover some of this, but there's a general feeling that there's no overall vision. Impacts from individual projects are narrowly studied and focused, so there's no sense of how they are woven into the fabric of the whole community. Whatever happens with the EIR, there will be some heated debate when the Planning Commission holds its hearing on July 12. The first mayoral election will have taken place and the results should at the very least thin the herd for a November runoff.

---

On the blog San Jose Inside, contributor "Single Gal" started a serious discussion over the ballpark, mayoral candidates, and the city's vision. She brought up candidate Michael Mulcahy and the notion that he may get votes simply because he's so close to the situation. Not to be lost in all of this is candidate David Pandori's swipe at Mulcahy over the weekend.

Yesterday, word came that Adobe is going forward with plans to acquire the 5.5-acre SJWC east parcel. There goes one major piece of a ballpark village, at least a viable piece for commercial use. As for the residentially zoned west parcel, nothing's been announced yet.

One bit of non-San Jose news that can apply universally: Phoenix is losing $3 million per year on a 2,800-space garage built north of Chase Field (formerly Bank One Ballpark). Promises of 90% capacity as a multi-use parking facility never came to fruition. The garage only gets significant use during the Snakes' home games.

Ticket price comparison

The start of the baseball season is usually accompanied by two neat statistical news releases. Forbes Magazine's 2006 team valuation figures are not available, but Team Marketing Report's newest MLB Fan Cost Index is. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the elimination of the Coliseum's third deck led to a 25% increase in the average price of a seat. What is surprising is the fact that many teams with new stadiums are towards the bottom of the list. Granted, most of those teams (Detroit, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee) have been perennial cellar-dwellers in medium-to-small markets, but there appears to be a clear correlation between on-field success and ticket price. Baltimore and Seattle charged a hefty premium when their teams were more successful and their stadia were newer. As both went into the tank in the last few years, price hikes have been fewer.

To put things into perspective, here are a few more bullet points that you might find interesting:

1. In 1999, the A's average ticket price was $10.10. That means that in seven years, ticket prices have gone up 118%.
   
2. 1999 payroll was only $26 million. The current payroll is $62 million, a 138% increase. Pay-to-play is the name of the game.
3. There's no better indicator of MLB clubs' revenue disparity than ticket prices. Ten years ago, Boston had the highest ticket price - $15.43. Cincinnati had the lowest - $7.95. Boston still holds the mantle of as ticket price champ, with its average price at $46.46. Kansas City now has the lowest - $13.71. There's also a multiplier effect because teams like the Red Sox, Yankees, and Cubs routinely sell their seasons out, as opposed to the oft-lackluster attendance records of the lower-revenue teams.

The Fan Cost Index is frequently cited by analysts and economists, but it tends to paint the fan experience with too broad a brush. Before his untimely passing, Doug Pappas wrote an article for Baseball Prospectus that deconstructed the FCI and sought to obtain more granular, circumstance-based data.

Now that the A's have raised ticket prices 25% over last season, what's in store for the remaining years on the Coliseum lease? And what can we expect when a new ballpark is opened? Will it have a China Basin-like pricing structure, or will it look like PNC Park's tiering system?

Third deck closure (again)

A new piece in Slate by SF Weekly contributor Tommy Craggs provides a nice forward for today's upcoming post on ticket prices. Craggs bemoans the loss of the Coliseum's upper deck, especially section 310, where he and his friends frequently sat during games. Perhaps a little too romantically he writes, "Underpoliced and sparsely populated, the coliseum's scruffy upper deck was perfect—the ballpark equivalent of Wyoming." There's value in being able to stretch out, place one's jacket on an adjacent chair, or use the next row of seats as a footrest. It's also nice to be able to render a printed row and seat assignment useless. Plus it doesn't hurt that vertical circulation in the Coliseum has always been excellent, making "trading up" quite easy.

Of course, Craggs doesn't mention that sitting in 310 often made one feel like he was watching the game while actually sitting in Wyoming. Believe me, I'm a cheap guy who loves my bleacher seats and used the "View level" as a reliable fallback when the bleachers were sold out, but the seating bowl's curvature was not conducive to actually watching a ballgame. I've had a chance to sit in every section in the Coliseum, even the odd Loge boxes in the corners that act as not-quite skyboxes. I absolutely sympathize with AN's Brian in 317 and FreeSeatUpgrade, who have championed the upper deck ever since the announcement to close it was made. Unfortunately, they're a small subset of A's fandom, and their counterparts in other cities have been slowly becoming extinct over the past two decades - or at the very least homeless.

The funny thing is that the upper deck vibe hasn't completely evaporated. It appears to have moved to the Plaza Outfield area (formerly Plaza Bleachers). While these sections are more likely to be sold out for high-demand games, the typical weekday series against Texas or Kansas City will render the Plaza Outfield a veritable pasture. There are far fewer desirable seats (front row for the most part) in Plaza Outfield because so much of the outfield is obstructed by the sheer height of the deck. It's still an interesting vantage point, especially if one get there early enough to sit in dead center.

My cynical side points to a strictly business ethos in the closing of the upper deck, in that sections 315-319 were too good. Similar seats in other stadia cost upwards of $20. Yet A's fans were only paying $9, or $1 on Wednesdays. For many, the price of a View level ticket acted as a cover charge, and upon entering the stadium they made a beeline for the Field level. If not trading up, finding a slightly better perch in the upper deck was likely as long as there were plenty of empty seats in the area.

Last September, Craggs also wrote about the ballpark design Wolff unveiled in his August press conference. He alluded to the scarcity issue in that piece as well, though in the throes of a pennant race I doubt anyone was even considering the idea that Wolff would experiment with the stadium in such a drastic way. The days of an A's being an inexpensive social scene are coming to an end.

Or are they? Certainly there are potentially innovative ways to bring these fans in without completely destroying their wallets, right? The A's transitioned several season ticket holders from the 300's during the offseason, but what about the young, spur-of-the-moment types? For them, I think there is a good solution: student sections. It works in college basketball and football, why not at an A's game? The student sections could be specially designated areas of either the bleachers or upper deck, with discounted tickets and special green T-shirts. Student sections at college hoops and football games tend to be loud, so they'd naturally work for cheering and heckling in baseball. Non-students would be welcome too, but a certain percentage of those seats would be set aside for students - say 500-1,000. At the new ballpark non-premium bar could be built into the stadium for the kids to visit after games - with a ticket stub acting as free admission. The best part is that it would be easy to market ticket packages to schools and students.

Some may argue that this environment is already in place at the Coliseum, but not the way I've defined it. The LF bleachers are always raucous due to the culture that's been there for decades. When the A's move to new digs, tickets will become even more scarce, which could further push fans away. Why not take a proactive approach and give it a new marketing twist? The more of those young fans can be kept in fold, the more likely they'll sign up for better seats as they get older, earn more money, have families, etc. Wolff said he likes the "neighborhood" concept being deployed at many new ballparks. Well, Lew, here's a group of fans just waiting for a neighborhood. What can you do for them?

Wolff confronts the rumor mill, Part II

Furthering the effort to dispel any notion of a hidden agenda, Lew Wolff spoke with Merc scribe Mark Emmons and gave a little more insight into the business operations side of the A's. Apparently Wolff owns 12% of the team, a partnership (which I assume includes members of the DiNapoli family) owns 13%, and John Fisher controls the rest.

After the warm-fuzzy stuff in the article, they get down to the ballpark issue, which doesn't reveal anything new on the dealmaking front. However, there appears to be clarification on a number of subjects.

On looking outside the Bay Area:

He will look elsewhere "only if we bomb out here."

Regarding Oakland:

Wolff said he has not closed the door to Oakland, although there has been no sign of meaningful talks in months. He has been in discussions with Fremont and calls the site adjacent to Interstate 880, currently leased by Cisco Systems, "an excellent location.''

Then onto San Jose (emphasis mine):

Then there's the question of San Jose, which has twin hurdles: A ballpark presumably would need voter approval, and baseball gave the Giants territorial control of the market. Wolff, who also has been talking with Major League Soccer about bringing a new franchise to the city to replace the Earthquakes, insists he won't "tilt at windmills'' and fight the Giants' claim.

Added Selig: "San Jose is a dead issue. The thing that holds the sport together is its own internal rules. If you start to break them, you're going to have anarchy.''

But look at this from earlier in the article::

Yet ask Wolff, a prominent figure in San Jose redevelopment for almost four decades, what would be a good next step in the revitalization of the city's core, and he says: "If they could get the A's, that would help.''

After reading the article I had to re-read it again twice. Frankly, I don't know what to think. Some of the OAFC-ers seem to believe that Wolff and Selig are playing good cop/bad cop on this, though Selig hasn't been nearly as visible as Wolff and Selig's given more soundbites to the Marlins' cause than the A's (which is likely a vote of confidence in Wolff, not in Loria/Samson). I find it interesting that those who have dealt directly with Wolff have given a near-universal appraisal of the man as a "straight shooter" or any number of words that are synonyms for "honest." Those who haven't dealt with Wolff tend to have a more cynical or negative view. I've never met Wolff myself, so I can only temper things I've heard as a San Jose local (also positive) with the various bits of circumstantial evidence that exist.

Shrugging my shoulders as always...

---

One more thing - I've added "Attendance Watch" to the sidebar. In my previous attendance analyses there has usually been a mention of standard deviation. I haven't done that yet with the figures because as the statheads usually say: Two weeks into the season is too small a sample size.